Not at all (it's a fair question). I think the idea of deferring exclusively to a doctor is wrong (for me at least). People wear fitness trackers to count their steps without damaging their exercise goals, and I view other medical testing similarly.
First, I'm not "undergoing treatment" so I don't think my negative perceptions would cause anything to have a worse efficacy (which is my understanding of "nocebo").
Second, I think that measurement is ok (great even) as long as you have correct expectations. Doctors will often say that you shouldn't get tests unless undergoing a differential diagnosis from a doctor, because tests all have ranges, and slightly off results can freak out patients who are otherwise healthy. Frankly, I assume it's actually a cost/effort thing. I disagree because (1) you have to wait until something is wrong before getting a test and (2) its would good to have a baseline level of <thing> for when something goes wrong to avoid red-herrings.
If you have a mole or lump, a doctor would not recommend you undergoing surgery, or even get an invasive biopsy unless it's really scary looking at start. Many/Most are benign. BUT a doctor generally would suggest you watch it regularly in case it changes. Clearly monitoring benign-looking things is good, because it can become less benign or it can be a symptom of something dangerous.
Concretely, I'm a very healthy and active individual, but also a vegetarian. Vegetarian diets can easily be vitamin deficient, so I get tested. Doctors generally don't want to test me because I "clearly look healthy and don't have symptoms of deficiency". But I was absolutely deficient for years, and while I felt fine, supplementing for my deficiency showed me I could feel better than before.
Thanks for the response. I do think there is a big difference between routine checks of a mole and daily quantifying of a biometric signal that is of questionable use outside elite sports or specific illnesses. My point about nocebos is that people can take data, knowledge of potential side-effects for example, and cause themselves ill effects by worrying about them. I can easily imagine some of my friends checking their perfectly healthy but noisy glucose levels and worrying that there is something wrong. I guess it's about mindset (mostly curiosity?) for self-quantifiers.
Oh yes, continuous glucose monitoring is totally overkill for most people. I just wanted to try it out because it’s a hobby. But yearly blood work or similar should be fine for anyone who wants it IMO. Well, anything that is measuring-only I think should be available to anyone who wants it TBH.
I think you need to go in with the right perspective, and I think the setting of doctors only offering tests when there is something wrong sets the tone that they catch dangerous things. Imagine if blood testing were available at gyms (not a suggestion, just an example) - the data would be viewed very differently. Imagine if doctors’ offices had treadmills, you’d view exercise very differently too.
If your X metric is a bit outside of a normal range, it doesn’t mean you’re going to die or you can’t handle some biological function (generally). It means it may be more strenuous for your body, or you’re predisposed to issues when something else goes wrong, or your body is simply a bit outside “normal”. It’s like someone who is really tall - being tall is “not normal” but it’s generally recognized as not deadly, despite the reality that certain health issues are correlated with abnormal height.
First, I'm not "undergoing treatment" so I don't think my negative perceptions would cause anything to have a worse efficacy (which is my understanding of "nocebo").
Second, I think that measurement is ok (great even) as long as you have correct expectations. Doctors will often say that you shouldn't get tests unless undergoing a differential diagnosis from a doctor, because tests all have ranges, and slightly off results can freak out patients who are otherwise healthy. Frankly, I assume it's actually a cost/effort thing. I disagree because (1) you have to wait until something is wrong before getting a test and (2) its would good to have a baseline level of <thing> for when something goes wrong to avoid red-herrings.
If you have a mole or lump, a doctor would not recommend you undergoing surgery, or even get an invasive biopsy unless it's really scary looking at start. Many/Most are benign. BUT a doctor generally would suggest you watch it regularly in case it changes. Clearly monitoring benign-looking things is good, because it can become less benign or it can be a symptom of something dangerous.
Concretely, I'm a very healthy and active individual, but also a vegetarian. Vegetarian diets can easily be vitamin deficient, so I get tested. Doctors generally don't want to test me because I "clearly look healthy and don't have symptoms of deficiency". But I was absolutely deficient for years, and while I felt fine, supplementing for my deficiency showed me I could feel better than before.